PSYC 376 Unit 5

The flashcards below were created by user
Csouch
on FreezingBlue Flashcards.

How do Ceci and Bruck (1993) define suggestibility? Why is this definition superior to others that had been offered?

“The degree to which encoding, storage, retrieval, and reporting of events can be influenced by a range of social and psychological factors.” (2 points) This definition is superior to others because it considers facts that are internal and external to the child (1) as well as factors that were present before, during, and after the target event.(1)

In the first (modern) clear and controlled study of children’s suggestibility, Ceci, Ross, and Toglia concluded that differences in memory for the target event cannot explain differences in suggestibility. What data did they use to support this conclusion? (you do not have to report numbers, you must report patterns, however)

Among children who were not presented with suggestions (1), all age groups recalled the same amount of information about the target event. (1)

Describe the Thompson, Clark-Stewart, and Lepore (1997) methodology for studying children’s suggestibility for an ambiguous event.

Children observed ambiguous actions (1) that a janitor described as cleaning or playing behaviours (e.g., wiping a doll’s face). (1) One hour later the children were interviewed three times (1) in succession. (1) The first two interviews were either neutral (no evaluation about the janitor' actions or character), incriminating (the janitor should not play with the doll, and that he was not a very good worker) that became increasingly forceful if the child did not agree with the suggestions, or exculpatory (the janitor was doing his job of cleaning the doll). (3) The third interview was neutral (1) and conducted by the child’s parent. (1) The fourth neutral interview (1) was conducted one week later by the child’s parent. (1) Of particular importance were children’s responses to open-ended questions (1)

In the Sam Stone study by Leichtman and Ceci (1995) there was a control condition. What was the control condition and why was it necessary?

In the control condition, children were exposed to the event (Sam’s visit) (1) but did not receive either stereotype induction before the visit or suggestions after the visit. (1) This control condition measured the extent to which children would report that Sam ripped a book or soiled a teddy bear in response to interview questions only. (1)

Based on the study by Garven et al. (2000), some might recommend that interviewers be dispassionate when interviewing children. Why might some interpret the data this way? Based on what you have learned, how would you respond?

The data from Garven et al (2000) show a very strong effect of positive and negative children’s errors. That is, children in the reinforcement condition committed far more errors than children in the no reinforcement condition. (1) This could be interpreted as evidence that interviewers should be dispassionate when interviewing children. However, the reinforcement in the Garven et al. study was contingent; negative and positive feedback was given based on the content of the child’s response (positive if the child agreed with a suggestion and negative if the child rejected the suggestion). (2 points) There is a substantial literature on the demeanor of the interviewer that demonstrates that a warm and supportive interviewer helps children to provide complete (1) and accurate (1) reports and resist suggestions (1).

Principe and Schindewolf (2012) reasoned that the impact of social conversations on children’s suggestibility can be considerable for at least two reasons. Discuss the two reasons.

First, the nature of conversations is quite different in the context of social sharing and forensic interviews. The goal of conversations in a social context is to build bonds, entertain, and reveal personal characteristics, among other things (2, provide at least 2 of the goals); accuracy can be subordinate to these goals. (1) Conversely, the goal in a forensic interview is to describe a past event as accurately and as completely as possible (1). Second, the very nature of social conversations is to share information; conversational partners often provide additional details and/or interpretations of the event. (1)

Describe the methodology used by Principe et al. (2012) to study the effect of peer conversations on children’s reports.

Children olds watched a magic show (1) during which the magician, Mumfry, attempted but failed to pull a rabbit out of a hat. (1) After several attempts, Mumfrey ended the magic show without any explanation for the failed rabbit trick. (1) In the Overheard condition, children overheard a conversation between the teacher and an unfamiliar adult in which the adults stated that the rabbit trick failed because the rabbit got loose in the school. (1) Children in the Classmate condition were children who were in the same class as the children in the Overheard condition, but did not hear the conversation. (1) Children in the Control condition were from a different school; they did not overhear the discussion nor did they have an opportunity to discuss the loose rabbit with peers. (1) Children in the Overheard and Classmate conditions wore a tape recorder to allow the researchers to record and analyze their conversations with peers following the discussion between the teacher and the unfamiliar adult. (1). One week later and again four weeks later children were interviewed about the magic show and asked to report only what they remember actually seeing. (1) If a child did not report that the rabbit was loose in the school, the child was asked “Did anything happen to Mumfry’s rabbit?” (1) Children who mentioned a loose rabbit were asked to say more about that and if they actually saw the rabbit or only heard that it got loose. (1)

a suggestibility study children experienced a single event or four similar events. In the repeated-event condition, some details changed in predictable ways across experiences and some details remained the same. For instance, if the event was a magic show, the magician always uttered magic words but the particular magic words changed across experiences. However, the magic trick was always turning a nickel into a dime. Sometime later, children were presented with suggestions about the magic words and the magic trick. For half of the suggestions, the suggestion was consistent with what they had experienced (e.g., the magic words that were suggested could have been said) or inconsistent with what the children had experienced (e.g., that the magician made an omelet—nothing like a magic trick). For each of the following types of details, state whether the repeat event children would be more suggestible, less suggestible, or as suggestible as the single event children:
variable details were associated with each other and suggestions were consistent with experiences
variable details were associated with each other and suggestions were inconsistent with experiences
fixed details and the suggestion was consistent with experiences
fixed details and the suggestion was inconsistent with experiences

more

less

less

less

According to Ceci and Bruck (2006) what is the main cause of children’s suggestibility?

a. Interviewer bias

What is a suggestive question?

c. A question that contains information not already mentioned by the child.

Under what circumstances will a suggestive question compromise the integrity of a child’s report?

c. A suggestive question will always compromise the integrity of a child’s report

What did Poole and Lindsay find in their Mr. Science studies?

d. Children reported suggested information in response to “yes-no” questions and in response to open-ended questions.

Thompson, Clark-Stewart, and Lepore (1997) studied children’s suggestibility for an ambiguous event. Among children who were told by the janitor that he was cleaning the doll, what were their responses to open ended questions about the janitor’s actions?

c. By the fourth request for information, children in the incriminating condition reported that he was mostly playing with the doll.

The primary purpose of the Sam Stone study by Leichtman and Ceci (1995) was to study the effect of ______ on children’s reports.

c. Stereotypes

Children in the Sam Stone study were gently challenged if they reported that Sam ripped a book or soiled a teddy bear. Generally speaking, what was the effect of the first gentle challenge on children’s reports?

d. Some children retracted their report that Sam Stone had ripped a book or soiled a teddy bear

In the Sam Stone study, children reported that Sam had ripped a book or soiled a teddy bear in free recall in two conditions. Which two conditions?

c. Stereotype + suggestions, suggestions

In Garven et al. (2000) what kind of feedback was given to children in the experimental condition when they agreed with misleading suggestion?

a. Positive reinforcement

In Garven et al. (2000) which condition lead to the strongest suggestibility effects?

b. Fantastical details

In Principe et al.’s (2012) study on the effect of peer conversations on children’s report errors, which group of children were most likely to report that they actually saw the loose rabbit?

c. Children in the Classmate condition

Children in the Overheard and Classmate conditions were equally likely to report that they saw the loose rabbit

Sometimes, children who testify in court testify about a repeated event. It has been estimated that _____ of allegations of sexual abuse by children involve repeated abuse.

b. one-half

What is the sufficiency principle?

c. An indictment must describe the offence so as to lift it from the general to the particular.

In a typical repeated-event study, how is the target instance identified?

a. Something different occurs and children’s attention is focused on the difference.

In a typical repeated-event study a detail is presented differently across experiences. What kind of detail is this?

a. Variable

Compared to suggestibility for a single event, children are _____ suggestibility for variable details of a repeated event.

d. it depends on the type of variable detail.

Are children more or less influenced by suggestions about an instance of a repeated event versus a unique event? What does an answer to this questions depend on?

d. All of the above

Under which condition are older children probably more suggestible than younger children?

c. When the suggestions are consistent with highly related variable details

If children recognize that details across experiences “go together” what effect is this expected to have on suggestibility?